MANAGING FOR 

RESULTS

Implementation 

Approaches Used to 

Enhance 

Collaboration in 

Interagency Groups

Report to Congressional Addressees

February 2014

GAO-14-220

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-220, a report to 

congressional addressees

February 2014

MANAGING FOR RESULTS

Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance 

Collaboration in Interagency Groups

Why GAO Did This Study

Many of the meaningful results that the 

federal government seeks to achieve 

require the coordinated efforts of more

than one federal agency, level of 

government, or sector. The GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) 

takes a more crosscutting and 

integrated approach to improving 

government performance. GPRAMA 

requires that GAO periodically review 

implementation of the law. As a part of 

a series of reports responding to this 

requirement, GAO assessed how 

interagency groups addressed the 

central collaboration challenges 

identified in its prior work of 1) defining 

outcomes; 2) measuring performance 

and ensuring accountability; 3) 

establishing leadership approaches; 

and 4) using resources, such as 

funding, staff, and technology. 

GAO selected four interagency groups 

that met its key practices for enhancing 

and sustaining collaboration to learn 

about the approaches they used and 

found to be successful. These groups 

addressed issues of homelessness, 

reentry of former inmates into society, 

rental housing policy, and the 

education of military dependent 

students. To identify successful 

approaches, GAO reviewed agency 

documents, and interviewed agency 

officials that participated in these 

groups. Additionally, GAO convened 

recipients of the Presidential 

Distinguished Rank Award, who had 

experience with interagency 

collaboration. GAO is not making any 

recommendations in this report. GAO 

shared a draft of this report with key 

agencies that participated in the 

interagency groups GAO reviewed. 

The agencies either had no comments 

or provided technical comments, which 

GAO incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

The interagency groups GAO selected and expert practitioners—including those 

who received the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award—have used a range of 

approaches to address some of the key considerations for implementing 

interagency collaborative mechanisms, related to defining outcomes; measuring 

performance and ensuring accountability; establishing leadership approaches; 

and using resources, such as funding, staff, and technology.

Implementation Approaches Used by Select Interagency Groups

Key Considerations for 

Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms

 Implementation Approaches from Select 

 Interagency Groups

Outcomes

• Have short-term and long-term 

outcomes been clearly 

defined?

• Started group with most directly affected participants 

and gradually broadened to others. 

• Conducted early outreach to participants and 

stakeholders to identify shared interests.

• Held early in-person meetings to build relationships and 

trust.

• Identified early wins for the group to accomplish.

• Developed outcomes that represented the collective 

interests of participants.

• Developed a plan to communicate outcomes and track 

progress.

• Revisited outcomes and refreshed interagency group.

Accountability

• Is there a way to track and 

monitor progress?

• Developed performance measures and tied them to 

shared outcomes. 

• Identified and shared relevant agency performance 

data.

• Developed methods to report on the group’s progress 

that are open and transparent.

• Incorporated interagency group activities into individual 

performance expectations.

Leadership

• Has a lead agency or 

individual been identified?

• If leadership will be shared 

between one or more 

agencies, have roles and 

responsibilities been clearly 

identified and agreed upon?

• Designated group leaders exhibited collaboration 

competencies.

• Ensured participation from high-level leaders in regular, 

in-person group meetings and activities.

• Rotated key tasks and responsibilities when leadership 

of the group was shared.

• Established clear and inclusive procedures for leading 

the group during initial meetings.

• Distributed leadership responsibility for group activities 

among participants.

Resources

• How will the collaborative 

mechanism be funded?

• How will the collaborative 

mechanism be staffed?

• Created an inventory of resources dedicated towards 

interagency outcomes.

• Leveraged related agency resources toward the group’s 

outcomes.

• Pilot tested new collaborative ideas, programs, or 

policies before investing resources.

View GAO-14-220. For more information, 

contact J.Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806 

or mihmj@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

Letter 1 

Background 6

Approaches Used to Develop Outcomes from Select Interagency 

Groups 14

Approaches for Ensuring Accountability from Select Interagency 

Groups 22

Leadership Approaches from Select Interagency Groups 27

Approaches for Managing Resources from Select Interagency 

Groups 36

Agency Comments 41

Appendix I Highlights Page from GAO-06-15 44

Appendix II Highlights Page from GAO-12-1022 45

Appendix III List of Collaborative Mechanisms from GAO-12-1022 46

Appendix IV Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 47

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 52

Table

Table 1: OPM’s Executive Core Qualification: Building Coalitions 30

Figures

Figure 1: Practices that can help enhance and sustain 

collaboration among federal agencies: 4

Figure 2: Excerpt from a Public Housing “Myth Buster” from the 

Reentry Council 19

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

DOJ Department of Justice

DPC Domestic Policy Council 

ECQs executive core qualifications

Education Department of Education

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

 of 1993

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban 

 Development

Labor Department of Labor

MOU memorandum of understanding

MOU Working Group DOD and Education MOU Working Group

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PHA public housing authorities

Reentry Council Federal Interagency Reentry Council

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Treasury Department of the Treasury

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USICH U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

February 14, 2014

Congressional Addressees

Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to 

achieve, such as those related to protecting food and agriculture and 

providing homeland security, require the coordinated efforts of more than 

one federal agency, level of government, or sector. However, agencies 

face a range of challenges and barriers when they attempt to work 

collaboratively. The need for improved collaboration has been highlighted 

throughout our work over many years, in particular in two bodies of work. 

First, our reports over the past three years identified more than 80 areas 

where opportunities exist for executive branch agencies or Congress to 

reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.1 We found that resolving 

many of these issues requires better collaboration among agencies. 

Second, collaboration and improved working relationships across 

agencies are fundamental to many of the issues that we have designated 

as high risk due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement, or because they are most in need of transformation.2

The current federal budget situation poses additional challenges for 

agencies. Federal agencies will need to work even more closely with 

other agencies to leverage more limited resources to achieve their 

missions in the current fiscally constrained environment. The Budget 

Control Act of 2011, signed on August 2, 2011, established a 10-year cap 

on discretionary spending as part of a process to achieve more than $2 

trillion in deficit reduction.3

 

1

GAO, 2013 Annual Report Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and 

Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, 

Spending for the major health and retirement 

GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 9, 2013); 2012 Annual Report Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Government Operations: Opportunities to Reduce Potential 

Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, 

GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011).

2

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2013).

3

Pub. L. No. 112-25, 125 Stat. 240. In December 2013, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 

extended the sequestration of direct spending to fiscal years 2022 and 2023 and revised 

discretionary spending limits established under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Pub. L. 

No. 113-67, div. A, title I, subtitle A, § 101, 127 Stat. 1165, 1166-69 (Dec. 26, 2013).
 

Page 2 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

programs is projected to increase as a share of the gross domestic 

product in coming decades, putting greater pressure on the rest of the 

federal budget. All of these conditions will require greater scrutiny of 

federal efforts.

For almost two decades we have reported on agencies’ missed 

opportunities for improved collaboration through the effective 

implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA).4 In our 1997 assessment of the status of the implementation of 

GPRA, we reported that agencies faced challenges addressing 

crosscutting issues, which led to fragmentation and overlap.5 Again, we 

reported in 2004—more than 10 years after the enactment of GPRA—that 

there was an inadequate focus on addressing issues that cut across 

federal agencies.6 Now, more than 20 years since GPRA’s passage, our 

work continues to demonstrate that the needed collaboration is not 

sufficiently widespread.7 The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

(GPRAMA)8

This report is part of a series of reports under our mandate in GPRAMA to 

periodically examine how agencies are implementing the law. The 

objectives of this report are to examine how select interagency groups 

(such as task forces, working groups, councils, and committees): 1) 

defined their outcomes; 2) measured performance and ensured 

accountability; 3) established leadership approaches; and 4) used 

establishes a new framework aimed at taking a more 

crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results and 

improving government performance. Like the original GPRA, effective 

implementation of GPRAMA could play an important role in clarifying 

desired outcomes, in addressing program performance that spans 

multiple organizations, and in facilitating future actions to reduce 

unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.

 

4

Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993).

5

GAO/GGD-97-109. 

6

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for 

Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004).

7

GAO, Managing For Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA 

Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges, GAO-13-518 

(Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013).

8

Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011).
 

Page 3 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

resources, such as funding, staff and technology. We focused on these 

key issues because we determined, based on a sample of prior work on 

interagency collaboration from 2005 to 2013, that they are the most 

common challenges that interagency groups face when collaborating. 

Accordingly, we wanted to identify specific implementation approaches 

that interagency groups have used to address these issues. We focused 

on interagency groups, which was the most commonly used mechanism 

for federal interagency collaboration that we found in our prior reports.9

In 2012, we reported on the multiple interagency mechanisms that the 

federal government uses to collaborate.10

• Outcomes and Accountability: Have short-term and long-term 

outcomes been clearly defined? Is there a way to track and monitor 

their progress?

These mechanisms included 

interagency groups (such as task forces, working groups, councils and 

committees); co-location (such as housing one or more federal agencies 

that collaborate on various programs in one location); and collaboration 

technologies (such as shared databases and web portals), among others. 

We found in this work that although collaborative mechanisms differed in 

complexity and scope, they all benefitted from certain key practices, many 

of which we had identified in 2005. Accordingly, in our 2012 report, we 

built on our past work and developed key issues for Congress and others 

to consider when implementing these mechanisms. Some of these key 

features and issues to consider are:

• Bridging Organizational Cultures: What are the missions and 

organizational cultures of the participating agencies? Have agencies 

agreed on common terminology and definitions?

• Leadership: How will leadership be sustained over the long term? If 

leadership is shared, have roles and responsibilities been clearly 

identified and agreed upon?

• Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities: Have participating agencies 

clarified roles and responsibilities?

 

9

Although we focused on these four areas, because they were the most challenging 

features for interagency groups to implement, some of the approaches we identify in this 

report can also be useful for implementing the other key features of collaborative 

mechanisms, such as bridging organizational cultures, clarifying roles and responsibilities, 

and including relevant participants.

10GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
 

Page 4 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

• Participants: Have all relevant participants been included? Do they 

have the ability to commit resources for their agency?

• Resources: How will the collaborative mechanism be funded and 

staffed? Have online collaboration tools been developed?

• Written Guidance and Agreements: If appropriate, have 

participating agencies documented their agreement regarding how 

they will be collaborating? Have they developed ways to continually 

update and monitor these agreements?

Given agencies’ longstanding challenges working across organizational 

lines, in 2005, we identified the following practices that can help enhance 

and sustain collaboration among federal agencies.11

Figure 1: Practices that can help enhance and sustain collaboration among federal 

agencies

(See figure 1). 

Appendixes I and II provide the highlights pages for these reports and 

Appendix III contains a list of the collaborative mechanisms we identified.

• Define and articulate a common outcome;

• Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies;

• Identify and address needs by leveraging resources;

• Agree on roles and responsibilities;

• Establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency 

boundaries;

• Develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results;

• Reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through agency plans and 

reports; and

• Reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts through performance 

management systems. 

Source: GAO-06-15. 

To identify these implementation approaches, we focused on four 

interagency groups, which we had documented in our prior work as 

successfully addressing one or more of the key considerations for 

implementing collaborative mechanisms. Based on a review of our prior 

work, we identified potential interagency groups that exhibited some of 

the practices to enhance and sustain collaboration.12

 

11GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, 

We then narrowed 

the list of interagency groups to four groups that represented a balanced 

GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

12GAO-06-15 and GAO-12-1022. 
 

Page 5 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

and diverse set of characteristics, including the number of participating 

agencies, duration, creation vehicle (for example, through laws, etc.), and 

groups with both voluntary and mandated participation. Our final selection 

of interagency groups includes the following:

• Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Education 

(Education) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group;

• Federal Interagency Reentry Council (Reentry Council); 

• Rental Policy Working Group; and the

• U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH).

More details on each of these groups can be found in the background 

section of this report. For each of these interagency groups, we reviewed 

documentation and interviewed officials from select agencies that

participate in each of these groups,13

In addition to the illustrative examples described above, we hosted two 

expert practitioner panels, in coordination with the Senior Executives 

Association,

and the Office of Management and 

Budget. We also observed a Reentry Council event and a USICH meeting 

in order to identify potential implementation approaches. In addition, to 

identify collaborative leadership competencies, we reviewed relevant 

academic literature and relevant reports.

14

 

13We interviewed officials from the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, 

Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, Treasury, 

and Veterans Affairs, as well as the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. We 

requested a meeting with the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) in the Executive Offices of 

the President, but DPC officials did not respond to our request for a meeting. We also 

interviewed a former DPC official, who was DPC’s official contact when the Rental Policy 

Working Group was formed in 2010. 

to identify and discuss useful approaches for implementing 

interagency groups. We selected panelists who were recipients of the 

Presidential Distinguished Rank Award in 2011 or 2012, and had 

14The Senior Executives Association is a nonprofit professional association that promotes 

ethical and dynamic public service by fostering an outstanding career executive corps, 

advocates the interests of career federal executives (both active and retired), and provides 

information and services to members, according to its website: 

http://www.seniorexecs.org/ (accessed December 17, 2013).
 

Page 6 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

experience leading or participating in interagency groups.15

Based on our interviews with interagency group participants and expert 

practitioners, we identified approaches that more than one group used to 

address each of the selected key issues of outcomes, accountability, 

leadership, and resources. We note that our findings rest on the 

examples we reviewed and the practitioners we interviewed and thus may 

not be applicable to all interagency groups. For example, in this report, 

we focus on interagency groups that are not established to respond to an 

emergency event, which academic and public policy experts have noted 

requires a different type of collaboration than during emergencies. 

We invited 

these panelists to share their perspectives on interagency groups; we did 

not ask them to speak on behalf of the federal agencies or organizations 

that these participants represent or represented. A list of the expert 

practitioners we interviewed is in Appendix IV, which also provides more 

detailed information about our objectives, scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to February 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The four interagency groups we reviewed possessed varied 

characteristics related to their purposes and outcomes, leadership 

structures, agency participation, and funding sources and staffing, as 

discussed in more detail below.

 

15Each year, the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award recognizes no more than one

percent of career Senior Executive Service members who demonstrated, “extraordinary 

long term achievements” in program results or executive leadership. The nominating 

criteria for these awards specify that, among other things, the senior executive has 

demonstrated his or her ability to partner with stakeholders inside and outside the 

organization. We held individual interviews with experts who were unable to attend the 

panel discussions.

Background

Interagency Groups
 

Page 7 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

We reported in 2011 that there were approximately 1.1 million school-age 

dependents of military parents in the United States. Because of their 

family situations, military dependent students may face a range of unique 

challenges, such as frequent moves throughout their school career and 

the emotional difficulties of having deployed parents.16

DOD and Education officials have a history of collaborating on education 

issues for children of military families. They formalized and broadened 

these efforts with an MOU, which they signed in June 2008. The purpose 

of the MOU was to establish a framework for collaboration between DOD 

and Education to address the quality of education and the unique 

challenges faced by children of military families. The MOU defined, in 

general terms, the basis on which these departments would work together 

to strengthen and expand school-based efforts to ease student transitions 

and help military dependent students develop academic and coping skills 

during periods of parental deployments. In addition, the MOU required the 

creation of a working group to ensure that the agencies meet the 

objectives of the MOU.

The DOD and Education MOU Working Group (MOU Working Group), is 

co-chaired by representatives from DOD’s Defense Education Activity’s 

Educational Partnership Branch and Education’s Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Military Liaison Team. The working group is also composed 

of representatives from several DOD and Education offices. The MOU 

Working Group has no separate budget. Working group representatives 

participate in working group activities as part of fulfilling their respective 

responsibilities at their home agencies. According to DOD and Education 

officials, they have made progress on a number of initiatives. For 

example, the Chief of the Educational Partnerships and Non-DOD School 

Program for DOD told us in May 2013 that 47 states had signed an

interstate compact that allowed flexibility during the transfer of military 

dependent students across jurisdictions. It also allowed credits and 

course work to more easily transfer to the students’ new schools.

In December 2012, we reported that about 700,000 inmates are released 

from federal and state custody each year, and another 9 million are 

booked into and released from local jails, according to the Bureau of 

 

16GAO, Education of Military Dependent Students: Better Information Needed to Assess 

Student Performance, GAO-11-231 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). 

DOD and Education MOU 

Working Group

Federal Interagency Reentry 

Council
 

Page 8 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

Justice Statistics. Moreover, we reported that these inmates face 

considerable challenges as they transition into, or reenter, society after 

incarceration. More than two-thirds of state prisoners are rearrested for a 

new offense within three years of their release and about half are 

reincarcerated.

17 In January 2011, the U.S. Attorney General convened 

the Reentry Council, a group of 20 federal entities whose mission is to 

make communities safer, assist those who return from prison and jail in 

becoming productive citizens, and save taxpayer dollars by lowering the

direct and collateral costs of incarceration.18 The premise of the Reentry 

Council is that many federal agencies have a major stake in assisting 

former inmates or inmates preparing for release from federal, state, and 

local correctional facilities. The U.S. Attorney General chairs the Reentry 

Council’s annual meeting. Also supporting the council is a staff-level 

working group that meets monthly.19

As we found in December 2012, among other accomplishments, the 

Reentry Council has been focused on reducing the barriers that exist for 

the reentry population. For example, the Reentry Council has taken 

several actions to address collateral consequences of criminal 

convictions—these are the laws and policies that restrict former inmates 

from things such as employment, welfare benefits, access to public 

housing, and eligibility for student loans for higher education. Such 

The Reentry Council has no 

separate budget, and its representatives participate in the group’s 

activities as part of fulfilling their responsibilities at their respective 

agencies.

 

17GAO, Inmate Reentry Programs: Enhanced Information Sharing Could Further 

Strengthen Coordination and Grant Management, GAO-13-93 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 

14, 2012). 

18The Reentry Council is composed of the Court Services and Offender Supervision 

Agency; Domestic Policy Council; Federal Trade Commission; Internal Revenue Service; 

Office of Management and Budget; Office of National Drug Control Policy; Office of 

Personnel Management; the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and 

Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, Veterans 

Affairs; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; U.S. Interagency Council on 

Homelessness; Social Security Administration; Small Business Administration; and the 

White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. 

19DOJ leads a staff-level working group composed of officials from the Reentry Council’s 

participant agencies that supports the Reentry Council. In particular, DOJ officials told us 

the staff-level working group meets monthly to support the Reentry Council by discussing 

plans and progress on various Reentry Council initiatives, policies, and programs.
 

Page 9 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

collateral penalties place substantial barriers to an individual’s social and 

economic advancement and can challenge successful reentry.

As we reported in June 2012, during the 2007-2009 recession, the 

elevated unemployment rate and declining home prices worsened the 

financial circumstances for many families, along with their ability to make 

their mortgage payments. As we and the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) reported, this period coincided with a rapid 

increase in the percentage of loans in foreclosure and increased demand 

for rental housing.20 In 2010, the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) 

established the Rental Policy Working Group, along with HUD, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of the Treasury 

(Treasury), to respond to the need for better coordination of federal rental 

policy.21 We reported in August 2012 that HUD, Treasury, USDA, the 

Department of Labor and the Federal Home Loan Banks administered 45

programs or activities that supported rental housing in fiscal year 2010.22

As we discuss in more detail later, HUD official told us that, since January 

2013, HUD has continued working with USDA and Treasury to implement 

a set of alignment recommendations that would improve coordinated 

government-wide oversight of subsidized rental housing properties, and 

reduce the administrative burden on affordable housing owners and 

managers. For one of those recommendations, the Rental Policy Working 

Group launched a pilot program in six states to test the feasibility of 

conducting a single, recurring physical inspection for jointly subsidized 

DPC leads the Rental Policy Working Group meetings. This group is 

supported by various subgroup meetings, which are lead by the 

respective leads for those groups, USDA, HUD, or Treasury. The Rental 

Policy Working Group has no separate budget, and group representatives 

participate in the group’s activities as part of fulfilling their responsibilities 

at their respective agencies.

 

20GAO, Foreclosure Mitigation: Agencies Could Improve Effectiveness of Federal Efforts 

with Additional Data Collection and Analysis, GAO-12-296 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 

2012); HUD, Worst Case Housing Needs 2011 Report to Congress. (Washington, D.C.: 

August 2013); and HUD, Worst Case Housing Needs 2009 Report to Congress. 

(Washington, D.C.: February 2011).

21The Rental Policy Working Group also includes the National Economic Council and the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

22GAO, Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider 

Consolidation, GAO-12-554 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 2012).

Rental Policy Working Group
 

Page 10 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

rental housing properties that would satisfy all agencies’ inspection 

requirements. According to the Rental Policy Working Group, this pilot 

program has avoided 120 duplicative inspections across the six states 

that participated in a second round of this pilot program in 2013.

According to HUD, on a single night in January 2013, approximately 

610,000 people were identified as experiencing homelessness.23 In 1987, 

Congress established USICH under the McKinney-Vento Homeless 

Assistance Act as an independent establishment to among other things, 

monitor, evaluate and recommend improvements in programs and 

activities to assist homeless individuals.

24 In 2009, under the Homeless 

Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH 

Act), Congress directed USICH to coordinate a government-wide 

response to homelessness and to create a national partnership at every 

level of government and with the private sector, while maximizing the 

effectiveness of the federal government in contributing to the end of 

homelessness.25 Currently, the heads (or their designee) of 19 federal 

entities participate in USICH.26

 

23

USICH is supported by the Council Policy 

Group, which provides a regular forum for coordinating policies and 

programs, collecting data, developing special initiatives, and preparing 

recommendations for consideration by USICH members. USICH elects a 

chairperson and a vice chairperson from its members, and these 

https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2013-Part1.pdf (accessed 

December 12, 2013).

24USICH was established by title II of the McKinney-Vento Act, Pub. L. No. 100-77, § 201, 

101 Stat. 482, 486 (July 22, 1987) as the “Interagency Council on the Homeless.” In 2004, 

Congress renamed it the “United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.” Pub. L. 

No. 108-199, div. G, § 216, 118 Stat. 3, 394 (Jan. 23, 2004). For more information on 

federal homelessness programs, see GAO, Homelessness: Fragmentation and Overlap in 

Programs Highlight the Need to Identify, Assess, and Reduce Inefficiencies, GAO-12-491 

(Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2012).

25Pub. L. No. 111-22, div. B, § 1004, 123 Stat. 1632, 1666 (May 20, 2009). 

26The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness includes members from the following: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, DOD, Education, Department 

of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, 

HUD, Department of Interior, DOJ, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, 

and Department of Veterans Affairs; Corporation for National and Community Service; 

General Services Administration; Office of Management and Budget; Social Security 

Administration; Postal Service; and the White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Community Initiatives (now known as the White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships). 

U.S. Interagency Council on 

Homelessness
 

Page 11 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

positions rotate among its members at the first meeting of each year. 

Additionally, an executive director, who is appointed by USICH member 

agencies and reports directly to the USICH’s chairperson, manages 

USICH’s daily activities. USICH is required by law to meet at least four 

times per year, although it has met more frequently. Unlike the other 

interagency groups we reviewed, USICH receives an appropriation from 

Congress and employs full-time staff.27 According to HUD, the total 

number of people identified as experiencing homelessness on a single 

night has decreased by 9.2 percent between 2007 and 2013. A number of 

sub-populations have also demonstrated reductions in homelessness. 

Specifically, HUD reported that, from 2010 through 2013, the number of 

people experiencing chronic homelessness was reduced by more than 15 

percent, and the number of homeless veterans was reduced by about 24 

percent during that same period. 

GPRAMA is a significant enhancement of GPRA, which was the 

centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in place during 

the 1990s to help resolve long-standing management problems in the 

federal government, and provide greater accountability for results. GPRA 

sought to focus federal agencies on performance by requiring agencies to 

develop long-term and annual goals—contained in strategic and annual 

performance plans—and measure and report on progress towards those 

goals annually. 

In our past reviews of its implementation, we found that GPRA provided a 

solid foundation to achieve greater results in the federal government. 

However, several key governance challenges remained, including 

addressing crosscutting issues. To help address this and other 

challenges, GPRAMA revises existing provisions and adds new 

requirements. Some of the new provisions and requirements that 

emphasize collaboration include:

Cross-agency priority goals: The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) is required to coordinate with agencies to establish federal 

government priority goals that include outcome-oriented goals covering a 

limited number of policy areas, as well as goals for management 

 

27In fiscal year 2012, Congress appropriated $3.3 million for USICH to carry out its 

responsibilities. In that year, USICH had 18 full-time employees, with staff based in 

Washington, D.C., and four regional positions.

Select GPRA 

Modernization Act 

Requirements
 

Page 12 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

improvements needed across the government. The act also requires that 

OMB—with agencies—develop annual federal government performance

plans to, among other things, define the level of performance to be 

achieved toward the cross-agency priority goals. GPRAMA also requires 

that OMB identify the agencies, organizations, program activities, 

regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities contributing to 

each crosscutting priority goal.28

Agency priority goals: Certain agencies are required to develop a 

limited number of agency priority goals every two years. Both the 

agencies required to develop these goals and the number of goals to be 

developed are determined by OMB. These goals are to reflect the highest 

priorities of each selected agency, as identified by the head of the 

agency, and be informed by the cross-agency priority goals, as well as 

input from relevant congressional committees. GPRAMA requires 

agencies to identify organizations, program activities, regulations, 

policies, and other activities—both internal and external to the agency—

that contribute to each of their agency priority goals and include this 

information in their performance plans and provide it to OMB for 

publication on Performance.gov.29 In addition, OMB’s 2012 guidance 

directs agencies to include tax expenditures in their identification of 

organizations and programs that contribute to their agency priority 

goals.30

Goal leaders: For each cross-agency priority goal, OMB must identify a 

lead government official—referred to by OMB as a goal leader—

responsible for coordinating efforts to achieve each of the goals. For 

agency performance goals, including agency priority goals, agencies 

 

28GAO, Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority 

Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-12-620R (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 

2012).

29OMB is required to develop a single, government-wide performance website to 

communicate government-wide and agency performance information. The website—

implemented by OMB as Performance.gov—is required to make available information on 

agency priority goals and cross-agency priority goals, updated on a quarterly basis; 

agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and performance updates; and an 

inventory of all federal programs. For more information, see GAO, Managing for Results: 

Leading Practices Should Guide the Continued Development of Performance.gov, GAO13-517 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2013).

30GAO, Managing For Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals under 

the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-13-174 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 19, 2013).
 

Page 13 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

must also designate a goal leader, who is responsible for achieving the 

goal.31

Federal program inventory: GPRAMA requires OMB to compile and 

make publicly available a list of all federal programs, and to include the 

purposes of each program, how it contributes to the agency’s mission and 

goals, and recent funding information.

Data-driven performance reviews: GPRAMA requires data-driven 

performance reviews at the federal level with a provision that federal 

agencies conduct quarterly performance reviews on progress toward their 

agency priority goals.32 Specifically, agencies are required to assess how 

relevant programs and activities contribute to achieving agency priority 

goals; categorize goals by their risk of not being achieved; and for those 

at risk, identify strategies to improve performance. GPRAMA also 

specified that the reviews must occur on at least a quarterly basis and 

involve key leadership and other relevant parties both within and outside 

the agency.33

Strategic reviews: OMB’s 2013 guidance directs agencies to conduct 

annual strategic reviews of progress toward strategic objectives to inform 

their decision making, beginning in 2014.34 Agency leaders are 

responsible for assessing progress on each strategic objective 

established in the agency strategic plan, including mission, as well as 

management or crosscutting objectives. Among other things, the reviews 

are intended to strengthen collaboration on crosscutting issues by 

identifying and addressing crosscutting challenges or fragmentation.

 

31GAO, Managing For Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management 

Leadership Roles, but Additional Training Is Needed, GAO-13-356 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 16, 2013).

32GAO, Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise But 

Agencies Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies, GAO-13-228 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2013).

3331 U.S.C.§1121(b). 

34OMB, Circular No. A-11, Performance Plans, Performance Reviews, and Annual 

Program Performance Reports. (July 2013).
 

Page 14 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

Key Considerations for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Implementation Approaches

Outcomes

• Have short-term and long-term 

outcomes been clearly defined?

• Started group with most directly 

affected participants and gradually 

broadened to others.

• Conducted early outreach to 

participants and stakeholders to 

identify shared interests.

• Held early in-person meetings to 

build relationships and trust.

• Identified early wins for the group to 

accomplish. 

• Developed outcomes that 

represented the collective interests of 

participants.

• Developed a plan to communicate 

outcomes and track progress.

• Revisited outcomes and refreshed 

interagency group.

Establishing shared outcomes and goals that resonate with, and are 

agreed upon by all participants, is essential to achieving outcomes in 

interagency groups, but can also be challenging. Participants each bring 

different views, organizational cultures, missions, and ways of 

operating.35 They may even disagree on the nature of the problem or 

issue being addressed. We identified a number of challenges in our prior 

work that interagency groups face when attempting to develop shared 

goals, including building a coalition of key federal participants, agreeing 

on the nature of a crosscutting issue, establishing mutually agreed-upon 

outcomes or objectives, and incorporating outcomes into strategic plans 

or implementation plans, among others. Furthermore, agency officials 

involved in several of the interagency groups we reviewed cautioned that 

if agencies don’t have a vested interest in the outcomes, and if outcomes 

are not aligned with agency objectives, participant agencies would not 

invest their limited time and resources.36

 

35

They told us that the process of 

developing shared or group outcomes takes time, requires building 

GAO-06-15 and GAO-12-1022. 

36Agencies are prohibited from expending appropriated funds on efforts unrelated to 

agency objectives. Under 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a) (commonly referred to as the purpose 

statute), agency appropriations are only available for expenses which are necessary or 

incident to the accomplishment of the purpose for which the appropriation is made. 

Approaches Used to 

Develop Outcomes 

from Select 

Interagency Groups
 

Page 15 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

relationships, and creating trust. The following approaches were used by 

agency officials to avoid or address these challenges.

We found that three of the four interagency groups we reviewed were 

started with a smaller group of key participants. Several expert 

practitioners we spoke with emphasized the importance of ensuring initial 

participation from agencies that have significant responsibility or interest 

in a crosscutting issue area. Officials reported that these early 

interactions helped to establish initial momentum and a vision for 

subsequent collaborative efforts. Over time, this smaller group of 

participants added agencies that had a more targeted commitment in the 

group’s activities and outcomes. For example, prior to the formation of the 

Reentry Council, a core group of agencies with considerable involvement 

in reentry issues and programs met to discuss their common interests 

and the possibility of further coordinating their efforts. According to one 

official we spoke with, these agencies included the Departments of Labor, 

Justice, Veterans Affairs, Education, Housing and Urban Development, 

and Health and Human Services. Following a number of early 

interactions, and meetings between officials from these agencies, interest 

grew for a more formal and coordinated approach to advance effective 

reentry policies. Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney General convened the 

Reentry Council in January 2011. Over time, interest has more than 

doubled to include 20 federal agencies.

Agency officials in all four interagency groups we reviewed and a number 

of expert practitioners emphasized the importance of reaching out to 

potential participants and identifying shared interests. While the 

interagency groups we reviewed benefitted from starting with a smaller 

group of participants, our past work found that if collaborative efforts do 

not consider the input of all relevant stakeholders, important opportunities 

for achieving outcomes may be missed.37

 

37

Officials reported that shared 

interests are the driving force for collaborative efforts, and collecting early 

input from participants was necessary to determine whether interagency 

collaboration would be mutually beneficial. In some cases, agency 

officials agreed on the nature of an issue. However in other cases, 

officials held conflicting perspectives. To overcome conflicting 

GAO-12-620R. 

Started Group with Most 

Directly Affected 

Participants and Gradually 

Broadened to Others

Conducted Early Outreach 

to Participants and 

Stakeholders to Identify 

Shared Interests
 

Page 16 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

perspectives, participants of interagency groups conducted outreach to 

stakeholders to build reasonable agreement.

In one instance, USICH conducted extensive outreach to participants and 

stakeholders prior to developing shared interagency outcomes and a 

national strategic plan in 2010.

38 Specifically, USICH’s outreach activities 

included feedback collected from workgroups composed of federal 

officials, expert practitioner panels, input from more than 750 leaders at 

regional stakeholder forums, focus groups, congressional staff, consumer 

advisory boards, and written comments from thousands of community 

experts and individuals. 39 According to documents that outlined the 

process for gathering stakeholder input and interviews with officials that 

participate in USICH, this input helped to inform the plan’s priorities and 

strategies. In addition, participants reported that it was essential to 

develop a practical and evidence-based plan with on-the-ground solutions 

that have widespread support. Furthermore, agency officials from HUD, 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), HHS and Department of Labor 

(Labor), each reported that they are committed to the national strategic 

plan on homelessness and believe it reflects their own agency’s 

objectives and interests.

Three of the interagency groups we examined and both expert 

practitioner panels stressed the importance of holding in-person meetings 

during the early stages of an interagency group. They each noted that 

personal interactions contributed to relationship-building, which formed 

the foundation for all subsequent activities and helped to break down 

silos. These meetings also enabled officials to learn about individual 

perspectives and aided in the transfer of knowledge between participating 

agencies. In addition, officials reported that in-person interactions helped 

build trust and strengthen professional networks. In our past work, we 

found that trust is an essential element to collaborative relationships.40

 

38U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to 

Prevent and End Homelessness (Washington, D.C.: June 2010).

39For the purposes of this report, participants are federal agencies with membership in a 

group, and stakeholders include non-participant federal agencies, state and local 

governments, non-governmental organizations, or any organization with an interest in the 

group’s activities and outcomes. 

40GAO-06-15. 

Held Early, In-Person 

Meetings to Build 

Relationships and Trust
 

Page 17 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

We also previously found that positive working relationships between 

participants from different agencies bridge organizational cultures. These 

relationships build trust and foster communication, which facilitates 

collaboration.41

Other officials we spoke with emphasized the importance of building trust 

on an individual basis with officials from participating agencies with 

related policy and program responsibilities. The purpose and activities for 

these in-person meetings varied and included planning, negotiating 

agreements, and information sharing, among others. For example, 

participants of the Rental Policy Working Group said that when they 

began working together, they spent several months building relationships 

and understanding each agency’s rental housing programs, policies, and 

efforts.

One expert practitioner told us that in-person meetings were essential for 

the Southeast Environmental Partnership for Planning and Sustainability 

to negotiate an agreement on environmentally acceptable procedures for 

controlled burns. Controlled burns, sometimes called prescribed burns, 

refer to the process of setting fires under controlled conditions. Initially, 

partnership participants had a very different view of controlled burns as 

an environmental activity. Officials from the Environmental Protection 

Agency focused on controlled burns as a contributor to air pollution, 

whereas officials from other federal and state agencies that conduct 

controlled burns, such as the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and 

Defense, viewed it as an important activity to sustain and manage land. 

Over time, officials from these agencies began to gain a better 

understanding of each other’s perspectives by meeting face-to-face. This 

interaction built trust and allowed them to reach common ground. 

Ultimately, the officials who conducted controlled burns for preservation of 

landscape ecologies adopted methods to minimize the environmental 

effects of these burns. Meanwhile, officials responsible for regulating air 

pollution gained a better appreciation for the value of fire in ecological 

restoration and preservation.

A number of agency officials and expert practitioners recommended that 

newly formed interagency groups identify and pursue “early wins” as an 

 

41GAO-12-1022. 

Identified Early Wins for 

the Group to Accomplish
 

Page 18 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

approach to build momentum and develop positive working relationships 

between group participants. According to officials, “early wins” should be 

practical and achievable projects that can be completed in the short-term. 

We were told that early wins allowed officials to establish relationships 

with their counterparts in other agencies and enabled teams to practice 

working together. This approach is consistent with our prior work that 

identified key practices from select efficiency initiatives, which highlighted 

the importance of identifying easily accomplished initiatives that can 

generate immediate returns to gain momentum for efficiency 

improvements.42

Early wins had a secondary benefit of demonstrating the benefits of 

collaboration. Officials from the groups reported that achieving early wins, 

allowed participants to build upon recent experiences, working 

relationships, improved knowledge of related programs, and team 

structures that had been established to coordinate group activities.

Participants of the Reentry Council’s staff-level working group initially 

employed an approach to identify “low hanging fruit” and intentionally 

sought early successes to build support and momentum. According to 

these officials, these early wins kept participants engaged and involved. 

For example, after forming the Reentry Council, participants agreed to 

participate in a “myth busting” campaign to address common 

misconceptions and dispel myths associated with the reentry population. 

According to Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, the “myth busting” 

campaign was implemented within existing authorities and received 

widespread support among participant agencies. As part of the campaign, 

the Council and its subcommittees developed short one or two-page 

whitepapers that clarified government policies, rules, and regulations 

related to formerly incarcerated individuals, and distributed them to 

stakeholders at the federal, state, and local levels. In one instance, the 

myth buster noted that there is a misconception that housing assistance 

from public housing authorities (PHA) is not generally allowable for 

formerly incarcerated individuals who qualify under federal guidelines 

(see figure 2). According to DOJ officials, a number of local housing 

authorities—such as New York City and New Orleans, Louisiana—have 

 

42GAO, Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select Efficiency Initiatives Should 

Be Shared Governmentwide, GAO-11-908 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2011).
 

Page 19 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

since reconsidered admissions policies for formerly incarcerated 

individuals.

Figure 2: Excerpt from a Public Housing “Myth Buster” from the Reentry Council

In another example of a quick win, Reentry Council member agencies 

developed new policies that enhanced their ability to meet the needs of 

the reentry population. Specifically, DOJ officials told us that VA had 

previously not been permitted to conduct outreach to incarcerated 

veterans until six months prior to their release. According to Reentry 

Council documents, VA revised its administrative policy that limited prison 

outreach. According to these documents, the revised policy allows for 

assessment and release planning with incarcerated veterans earlier than 

six months before release, thus enhancing the odds of successful reentry 

to society.

Agency officials in two of the groups we reviewed described a process for 

developing goals that represented the collective interests of participants, 

and articulating goals a high enough level that participants could reach 

agreement, but with enough specificity that participants felt they had a 

stake in the group’s goals. For example, an official from the Reentry 

Council’s staff-level working group told us that they developed six goals 

that were intentionally crafted at a high level to attract widespread support 

Developed Goals That 

Represented the 

Collective Interests of 

Participants
 

Page 20 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

from participating agencies. Although broad, the goals were also focused 

on important issue areas and challenges that participating agencies 

expressed interest in addressing. The group goals included:

• identifying research- and evidence-based practices;

• identifying opportunities and barriers to improve outcomes;

• promoting statutory, policy, and practice changes to reduce crime and 

improve the well-being of formerly incarcerated people;

• supporting initiatives in the areas of education, employment, health, 

housing, faith-based reentry services, drug treatment, and family and 

community well-being; 

• leveraging resources across agencies; and, coordinating messaging 

and communication about prisoner reentry.

Agency officials we spoke with said that these goals had not changed 

since being adopted in 2011, and are likely to remain relevant into the 

future.

To represent the collective interests of its participants, USICH has a 

policy to reach agreement among its members to ensure that all views 

are heard. As noted above, USICH is composed of the heads (or their 

designee) of 19 federal agencies. All 19 agencies have equal votes in any 

decisions brought before the group. USICH worked through its Council 

Policy Group to develop strategic interagency opportunities, built 

consensus, and laid the groundwork for the decisions brought before the 

leadership. We observed this process take place in June 2012 when 

USICH was considering revisions to objectives in its strategic plan.

All of the interagency groups we examined had developed formal plans or 

strategies that included outcomes, objectives, and descriptions of the 

group. We have previously reported on the importance of reinforcing 

agency accountability for collaborative efforts through agency plans and 

reports.43 Our prior work found that agencies that articulate their 

agreements in formal documents can strengthen their commitment to 

working collaboratively.44

 

43GAO-06-15. 

44GAO-12-1022. 

Developed a Plan to 

Communicate Outcomes 

and Track Progress
 

Page 21 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

The DOD and Education MOU Working Group developed a strategic plan 

to track its progress toward objectives, actions, and measurable 

outcomes that fulfilled the intention of their interagency agreement. 

Specifically, the strategic plan was aligned to focus on areas identified in 

the MOU, including expanding the quality of educational opportunities for 

military-dependent students, overcoming challenges military-dependent 

students face due to transitions or deployments, collaborative use of data, 

and increasing awareness of relevant education-related issues. The 

working group’s strategic plan describes the areas of mutual interest, and 

outlines specific objectives within these areas of interest that promote 

greater collaboration and improve the education of children of military 

families. For example, one objective calls for increasing awareness of 

education-related issues for military dependent children. The strategic 

plan provides related action items, such as development of a joint 

strategic communication plan, and subtasks with measurable outcomes, 

target audiences, and individual agency leads to promote accountability.

DOD and Education officials told us that the strategic plan helped them 

examine and prioritize their areas of collaboration to plan for future 

efforts, and reflect on the extent to which they are meeting the original 

intent of the MOU.

Several expert practitioners emphasized that interagency groups should 

periodically revisit their outcomes, and ensure that their work is aligned 

with current needs. In past work, we have discussed the importance of 

sustainability of group leadership. However, several expert practitioners 

noted that the group’s duration should be dictated by the nature of the 

outcome. In fact, the expert practitioners added that, to stay productive, 

many groups need to refresh their focus. If groups are not able to agree 

to a clear outcome, one expert practitioner noted that the group may 

decide to cease operating entirely. In some cases, interagency groups 

achieve their outcomes and can cease to meet or change focus. 

In other cases, expert practitioners told us that the focus of some groups 

changed over time and needed to be refreshed or given a new focus for 

the group to continue. In the instance of the MOU Working Group, in May 

2010—which was two years after the working group was formed—the 

President announced that an Interagency Policy Committee on Education 

would develop a new study directive to strengthen military families. This 

directive included outcomes to ensure excellence in military children’s 

education and their development, which included:

Revisited Outcomes and 

Refreshed Interagency 

Group
 

Page 22 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

• Improving the quality of the educational experience;

• Reducing negative impacts of frequent relocations and absences; and

• Encouraging the healthy development of military children.

These outcomes were directly related to the work of the DOD and 

Education MOU Working Group, which focused on improving educational 

outcomes for children from military families, according to DOD and 

Education officials. According to senior Education officials, the directive 

led Education to place an even greater priority on its collaborative efforts 

with DOD, and built upon the MOU Working Group’s strategic plan and 

related initiatives. The study directive provided another framework under 

which DOD and Education have worked together to improve the quality of 

education for military dependent children. DOD officials told us that, over 

the past two years, they have refocused on a number of new goals and 

emerging issues of importance. In one instance, the department has 

moved to focus on charter schools, with an emphasis on those in military 

instillations, and with high concentrations of military dependent students.

Key Considerations for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms Implementation Approaches

Accountability 

• Is there a way to track and monitor 

progress?

• Do participating agencies have 

collaboration-related competencies or 

performance standards against which 

individual performance can be 

evaluated?

• Developed performance measures and 

tied them to shared outcomes.

• Identified and shared relevant agency 

performance data.

• Developed methods to report on the 

group’s progress that are open and 

transparent.

• Incorporated interagency group 

activities into individual performance 

expectations.

Agencies in all of the groups we reviewed developed performance 

measures—or other approaches to track contributions—within their own 

agencies that related to the outcomes of the interagency group. However, 

officials explained that within interagency efforts, the commitment of 

individual agencies varied. This difference in commitment is reflected in 

the prominence of interagency group activities in the agency’s 

performance measures. For example, some goals of the national strategic 

Approaches for 

Ensuring 

Accountability from 

Select Interagency 

Groups

Developed Agency 

Performance Measures 

and Tied Them to Shared 

Outcomes
 

Page 23 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

plan on homelessness are reflected in the agency priority goals of HUD 

and VA.45

HUD and VA also have some shared performance measures. For 

example, the agencies have a goal related to the percent of chronically 

homeless veterans who are served by the HUD-Veterans Affairs 

Supportive Housing program. This is a shared program between HUD 

and VA that combines housing choice voucher rental assistance for 

veterans experiencing homelessness provided by HUD with case 

management and clinical services provided by VA. Through shared 

performance management, coordinated technical assistance, and 

communication to the field, the percentage of chronically homeless 

veterans served by this program increased by 49 percent in fiscal year 

2009 to more than 65 percent in fiscal year 2013, according to USICH.

In another instance, two agencies participating in the Reentry Council–

DOJ and Labor–have developed internal agency outcomes and 

performance measures to track progress toward their shared outcomes. 

For example, DOJ has established an outcome to increase the number of 

inmate participants in its Residential Drug Abuse Program by 6 percent 

over four years from 18,500 to 19,920.46

In our June 2013 report on the initial implementation of GPRAMA, we 

found that performance information can be used across a range of 

In contrast, while HUD officials 

participate in the Reentry Council, the Reentry Council’s outcomes are 

not explicitly included in the agency’s strategic plans. Nevertheless, the 

agency officials said to us that their participation in the Reentry Council 

aligned with HUD’s Strategic Plan, Goal 3, which focuses on utilizing

housing as a platform for improving quality of life.

 

45HUD and VA both have an agency priority goal of reducing homelessness. HUD has a 

goal to “in partnership with VA, reduce the number of homeless veterans to 35,000 by 

2013, by serving 35,500 additional homeless veterans.” VA has an agency priority goal to 

“assist in housing 24,400 additional homeless veterans (12,200 per year) and reduce the 

number of homeless veterans to 35,000 in 2013, to be measured in the January 2014 

point-in-time homelessness count.

46The Residential Drug Abuse Program is the Bureau of Prisons’ most intensive drug 

treatment program in which participants live in a housing unit separate from the general 

population; participate in half-day programming and half-day work; as well as educational 

or vocational activities. According to the DOJ strategic plan, research has shown that 

inmates who complete the residential drug treatment program and those who work in 

prison industries while incarcerated are less likely to recidivate.
 

Page 24 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

management functions to improve results, from setting program priorities 

and allocating resources, to taking corrective action to solve program 

problems.47 Moreover, we found that, if agencies do not use performance 

measures and performance information to track progress toward 

outcomes, they may be at risk of failing to achieve their outcomes. We 

have found this practice also holds true for efforts between federal 

agencies.48

To develop performance measures, one interagency group helped 

participants by creating a number of guides and toolkits to assist federal 

officials and stakeholders in measuring the performance of their efforts. 

Specifically, HUD developed and shared resources on performance 

measurement related to homelessness with participants from USICH. 

These resources both provided training on developing performance 

measures, and identified available HUD data sources, which agencies

could use when creating performance measures.

USICH and HUD officials told us that within interagency groups, it was 

necessary to agree on common data sources that will be used to track 

performance. For example, USICH and its participants have agreed to 

use HUD’s point-in-time count, which provides a snapshot of the number 

of people experiencing homelessness on a given night in America.49

 

47

According to the point-in-time counts, the total number of people identified 

as experiencing homelessness on a single night declined by 9.2 percent, 

or from about 672,000 in 2007 to about 610,000 in 2013. Reaching 

agreement on a common data source for tracking homelessness was a 

challenging process because it required agencies to agree to common 

definitions of homelessness, and the methodology for collecting the data, 

GAO-13-518. 

48GAO/GGD-00-106. 

49Communities annually submit point-in-time estimates to HUD. The counts attempt to 

enumerate both unsheltered persons (those in places not meant for human habitation 

such as the streets, abandoned buildings, or cars) and sheltered persons (those in 

emergency shelter or transitional housing on the night of the point-in-time count). 

Communities typically conduct their counts during a 24-hour period in the last week in 

January when a large share of the homeless population is expected to seek shelter rather 

than stay outside. 

Identified and Shared 

Relevant Agency 

Performance Data
 

Page 25 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

which had been a long-standing problem.50 Identifying and collecting 

timely data is necessary to track and review performance over time. In 

our prior work on the use of data-driven performance reviews, we found 

that agencies should look for opportunities to leverage data produced by 

other agency components or outside entities.51 We also found that 

agreeing on common definitions is one way to bridge organizational 

cultures.52

USICH also leveraged additional useful data sources from participating 

agencies. In one instance, the development and implementation of HUD’s 

Homeless Management Information Systems provided counts of the total 

number of people who use emergency shelters or transitional housing 

programs during the course of a year. According to documents from 

USICH, these data allow USICH and its stakeholders to track lengths of 

stay in shelters, service use patterns, and flow in and out of the system. 

Based on these data, USICH learned that the annual estimate of 

individuals using shelter decreased by about 5 percent between 2007 and 

2013 from 213,000 to 203,000 people, whereas, the number of persons in 

families using shelters has increased by about 7 percent from about 

178,000 to about 192,000 people during that period. 

Officials from all four groups we reviewed and expert practitioners 

stressed the importance of developing processes to regularly report the 

progress of the group. Performance reporting happened in a variety of 

ways, including posting information on websites, public reporting in 

meetings, and developing written reports for Congress. Each of the 

groups we reviewed had different levels of transparency and their 

approaches for reporting mirrored this transparency. For example, USICH 

regularly posts progress reports on its website and provides an annual 

report to Congress. In the case of the Reentry Council, agencies provided 

 

50Under the 2009 HEARTH Act, Congress broadened the general definition of 

homelessness and provided greater statutory specificity concerning those who should be 

considered homeless. In November 2011, HUD issued a final rule to implement changes 

to the definition of homelessness, which expanded who is eligible for various HUD-funded 

homeless assistance programs. As a result, persons meeting other federal statutes’ 

broader definitions of homelessness also can be eligible for HUD programs.

51GAO-13-228. 

52GAO-12-1022. 

Developed Methods to 

Report on the Group’s 

Progress That Were Open 

and Transparent
 

Page 26 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

written updates on their progress on specific initiatives, which were 

circulated among the group participants. Highlights from these written 

updates were also circulated through press releases. Furthermore, the 

Reentry Council posted information to a website, which described issues 

the group is addressing, summarized accomplishments to date, laid out 

priorities moving forward, and pointed to key resources and links.53 Both 

the MOU Working Group and the Rental Policy Working Group circulated 

updates through measures such as written reports to the White House 

and updates at group meetings. At various times, the Rental Policy 

Working Group shared progress through the Office of Urban Affairs’ Blog, 

which is posted on the website for the Executive Office of the President. 

We have previously reported about the importance of publicly reporting 

performance information as a tool for accountability.54

Senior agency officials from three of the groups we examined told us that 

the activities and outcomes of the interagency group they participated in 

are reflected in their individual performance contracts.55

 

53http://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/projects/firc/snapshots/ (accessed Dec. 12, 2013).

In some cases, 

individuals told us that the interagency group was explicitly named in the 

performance contract. In other cases, individuals told us that the work of 

the interagency group was aligned with the policy areas named in their 

performance contract. For example, staff from participating agencies

explicitly included performance expectations for collaboration with the 

Reentry Council within their performance expectations and rating 

standards. As such, a satisfactory performance rating for these 

individuals is contingent upon collaboration with the group. The agency’s 

performance management system also tracked individual contributions 

toward the Reentry Council, as well as participation in group meetings 

and activities. An explicit alignment of daily activities with broader results 

helps individuals see the connection between their daily activities and 

54GAO-13-517. 

55Members of the Senior Executive Service are required to have performance plans or 

performance contracts.

Incorporated Interagency 

Group Activities into 

Individual Performance 

Expectations
 

Page 27 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

organizational goals and encourages individuals to focus on achieving 

goals, as we found in a 2003 report.56

Key Considerations for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms Implementation Approaches

Leadership

• Has a lead agency or individual been 

identified?

• If leadership will be shared between 

one or more agencies, have roles and 

responsibilities been clearly identified 

and agreed upon?

• Designated group leaders exhibited 

collaboration competencies.

• Ensured participation from high-level 

leaders in regular, in-person group 

meetings and activities.

• Rotated key tasks and responsibilities 

when leadership of the group was 

shared.

• Established clear and inclusive 

procedures for leading the group 

during initial meetings.

• Distributed leadership responsibility 

for group activities among participants.

Expert practitioners and agency officials we interviewed told us that the 

designated leaders of interagency groups that they had been involved 

with exhibited the following five competencies: worked well with people, 

communicated openly with a range of stakeholders, built and maintained 

relationships, understood other points of view, and set a vision for the 

group. These competencies are also discussed by scholars in the 

literature we reviewed.

• Worked well with people: A few expert practitioners told us that

effective interagency leaders possessed “soft skills,” “people skills,” or 

“interpersonal skills.” One expert practitioner told us that effective 

interagency group leaders did not have to be extroverted, but they 

had to be able to work well with people. Another expert practitioner 

told us that the leader needed to talk in person with stakeholders 

rather than managing or interacting remotely. This competency is 

consistent with how some scholars have discussed the importance of 

collaborative leaders possessing interpersonal skills. For example, 

 

56GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 

2003).

Leadership 

Approaches from 

Select Interagency 

Groups 

Designated Group 

Leaders Exhibited 

Collaboration 

Competencies
 

Page 28 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

one scholar noted that collaborative leaders must be attuned to the 

needs and motivations of others to lead collaborative efforts.57

• Communicated openly with a range of stakeholders: A few expert 

practitioners told us that effective interagency group leaders had open 

communications with a range of stakeholders. One expert practitioner 

told us that it was important that the interagency group he led had an 

open and honest discussion with key stakeholders (in this case state 

and local officials) before attempting to resolve an issue to recognize 

those officials’ concerns. Another expert practitioner told us the leader 

needed to be able to communicate openly with the group’s members 

about how they would benefit from the collaboration, and why they 

were important to the collaboration. Some scholars have also noted 

that it is important for collaborative leaders to possess good 

communication skills. According to one scholar, research has shown 

that, if communications are open and free, then stakeholders would 

feel more comfortable in establishing longer-term working 

relationships and collaboration on other projects.58

• Built and maintained relationships: A few expert practitioners and 

agency officials stressed that the interagency group leader’s ability to 

build and maintain relationships was critical to interagency 

collaboration. According to one expert practitioner, it was important to 

form personal and trusting relationships so that the group had a basis 

for open and candid communication when difficulties arose. Another 

expert practitioner said that building relationships helped individuals 

know who to contact at other organizations involved in the 

collaboration. Some scholars have noted that it is important for 

collaborative leaders to build effecting working relationships. One 

study noted that it is the job of the leader to help increase trust by 

building working relationships and creating incentives for those in the 

collaboration.59

• Understood other viewpoints: A few expert practitioners told us that 

effective interagency leaders had the ability to draw out, understand, 

and value other viewpoints. According to one expert practitioner, the 

 

57Heather Getha-Taylor, “Reconsidering Leadership Theory and Practice for Collaborative 

Governance: Examining the U.S. Coast Guard,” Research in Social Movements, Conflicts 

and Change, vol. 29 (2008): 151-173. 

58David R. Connelly, “Leadership in the Collaborative Interorganizational Domain,” 

International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 30, no. 11 (2007): 1231-1262. 

59Heather Getha-Taylor, “Cross-Sector Understanding and Trust,” Public Performance 

and Management Review, vol. 36, no. 2 (2012): 216-229.
 

Page 29 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

best interagency leaders had the ability to understand others, 

especially those with other viewpoints. The expert practitioner added 

that this skill helps stakeholders build trust. This competency is 

consistent with how some scholars have discussed the need for 

collaborative leaders to elicit other points of view. According to one 

study, scholarly research has shown that leaders use this approach to 

repeatedly elicit ideas and build integrative solutions, to break down 

cultural barriers, to de-escalate conflict, and to provide feedback to 

the group that heightens its performance.60

• Set a vision for the group: An expert practitioner and agency 

officials told us that it was important for interagency leaders to set the 

strategic vision for the group. According to agency officials, 

interagency group leaders needed to have both the subject matter 

expertise to understand what the interagency group could accomplish, 

while also working with the group’s participants to collaboratively 

determine the vision. Some scholars have reported on the need for 

collaborative leaders to build a common vision. For example, one 

study noted that the successful collaborator is a skilled visionary who 

has the ability to see the big picture, and who thinks strategically, 

developing goals and the structures, inputs, and actions needed to 

achieve them. 61

The five competencies above are broadly consistent with the Office of 

Personnel Management’s (OPM) executive core qualifications (ECQs). 

OPM identified five ECQs for federal Senior Executive Service officials 

that assess executive experience and potential, and measure whether an 

individual has the broad executive skills needed to succeed in a variety of 

Senior Executive Service positions. OPM defines one of the ECQs as the 

ability to build coalitions internally with other federal agencies, sectors, 

and levels of government to achieve common outcomes. The 

competencies that are included in the ECQ for building coalitions and 

their definitions are included in table 1 below. 

 

60Rosemary O’Leary and Catherine Gerard, “Collaboration Across Boundaries: Insights 

and Tips from Federal Senior Executives,” IBM Center for the Business of Government 

Collaboration Across Boundaries Series, (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 

61O’Leary and Gerard, “Collaboration Across Boundaries Series: Insights and Tips from 

Federal Senior Executives,” p. 28. 
 

Page 30 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

Table 1: OPM’s Executive Core Qualification: Building Coalitions

Competency Definition

Partnering Develops networks and builds alliances, collaborates across 

boundaries to build strategic relationships and achieve 

common goals.

Political Savvy Identifies the internal and external politics that impact the work 

of the organization. Perceives organizational and political 

reality and acts accordingly.

Influencing/Negotiating Persuades others; builds consensus through give and take; 

gains cooperation from others to obtain information and 

accomplish goals.

Source: OPM. 

In a January 2012 memorandum, OPM included partnering, political 

savvy, and influencing/negotiating in its list of the core or supplemental 

competencies for two leadership positions required under the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010.62 Those leadership positions are the Agency 

Priority Goal Leaders and the agency Performance Improvement 

Officers.63

We previously reported on some activities for developing collaborative 

competencies in leaders at agencies with national security 

responsibilities. Our March 2012 report on national security personnel 

rotations found that rotational assignment programs can help develop 

attributes in leaders that enable them to successfully work across agency 

lines.

Moreover, OPM’s memorandum includes other supplemental 

competencies related to collaboration—such as interpersonal skills for, 

among other things, developing and maintaining effective relationships 

with others.

64

 

62OPM, Memorandum for Chief Human Capital Officers: Government Performance and 

Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 Functional Competencies, Jan. 3, 2012. 

For instance, the U.S. Army places a select number of its leaders 

into a rotational program to hone collaborative skills, such as 

63For more information about agency performance management positions and their 

responsibilities under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, see GAO-13-356. 

64Rotational assignment programs are work assignments at a different agency from the 

one in which the participant is normally employed, with an explicit professional 

development purpose. 
 

Page 31 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

communication and teamwork, and establish networks with their civilian 

counterparts.65

High-level leaders, such as Cabinet Secretaries (or agency heads), 

provided attention and support to each interagency group we reviewed by 

frequently attending meetings in-person, participating in a range of the 

groups’ activities, or both. Moreover, membership of three of the four 

interagency groups we reviewed included high-level officials from the 

Executive Office of the President, signaling that there was Presidential 

support for implementing the group’s initiatives. In our September 2012 

report on interagency collaborative mechanisms, we found that the 

influence of leadership can be strengthened by a direct relationship with 

the President, Congress, other high-level officials, or all of these 

officials.66

A few expert practitioners and agency officials told us that high-level 

leaders publicly reported progress of group initiatives to their peers at 

group meetings. This practice is consistent with how we have discussed 

the use of data-driven performance reviews as a leadership strategy to 

drive performance improvement of federal agencies. In our February 

2013 report on data-driven performance reviews, we found that 

attendance of high-level leaders fosters ownership and helps ensure 

Officials told us that their interagency groups benefitted from

involving high-level leaders because those leaders helped recruit key 

participants and made policy-related decisions requiring a high-level of 

authority. In one instance, officials told us that individuals were more likely 

to attend meetings because of the opportunity to interact with or brief 

high-level officials. Cabinet Secretaries (or agency heads), frequently 

attended in-person the meetings of two of the four interagency groups we 

reviewed. For instance, Cabinet Secretaries frequently attended USICH 

meetings in-person, and USICH’s leadership has rotated among the 

Secretaries of HUD, HHS, VA, and Labor since its formation. An HHS 

official said that, beginning in 2009, USICH leadership set a goal to have 

at least three Cabinet Secretaries attend each meeting. Officials from 

USICH told us in May 2013 that USICH had consistently met this goal.

 

65GAO, Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel Rotation Programs Can 

Build on Positive Results with Additional Preparation and Evaluation, GAO-12-386 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2012).

66GAO-12-1022. 

Ensured Participation from 

High-Level Leaders In 

Regular, In-Person Group 

Meetings and Activities
 

Page 32 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

participants take the reviews seriously and that decisions and 

commitments can be made.67

High-level leaders participated in a range of activities for each 

interagency group we reviewed, such as speaking publicly about the 

group’s issues, visiting affected communities, and convening a White 

House conference with group participants and stakeholders. In addition to 

the public housing myth buster described earlier in this report, high-level 

HUD leaders conducted outreach to advance the Reentry Council’s 

agenda. Specifically, in 2011, the HUD Secretary and Deputy Secretary 

for Public and Indian Housing sent a letter to executive directors of public 

housing authorities (PHAs) to clarify misconceptions. Specifically, the 

letter explained current federal regulations and informed local PHAs that, 

in many circumstances, formerly incarcerated individuals should not be 

denied access to federally supported public housing. According to 

Reentry Council officials, the letter from HUD’s senior leaders provided 

important leadership commitment to the field on an issue that is perceived 

as a major barrier to reentry.

During a recent Reentry Council meeting, 

chaired by the Attorney General, a representative from each participant 

agency reported on his or her agency’s commitment to the Reentry 

Council’s efforts and progress made supporting innovative reentry 

policies or programs. According to agency officials, agency leaders were 

aware of their interagency commitments and responsibility for regularly 

briefing their counterparts at other federal agencies. The agency officials 

noted that this regular peer reporting created a strong incentive for 

agency leaders to keep informed of the progress made throughout the 

year, and to set expectations with group participants and other staff. 

Furthermore, a few expert practitioners and agency officials told us that 

this senior-level involvement created a cascading level of accountability 

and commitment within individual agencies because agency staff reported 

to their senior leadership on their progress towards interagency 

outcomes.

 

67GAO-13-228. 
 

Page 33 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

Leadership of two of the groups that we reviewed—the DOD and 

Education MOU Working Group and USICH—is shared between two or 

more agencies. We previously found that agencies can convey their 

support for the collaborative effort by sharing leadership.68 However, in 

our prior work, we concluded that some agencies had difficulty 

implementing shared leadership of an interagency collaboration 

mechanism because it was unclear how the shared leadership model 

would work in practice.69

USICH has employed an approach for implementing its shared leadership 

model, which many of its participants told us has been beneficial. By law, 

USICH must elect a chair and vice-chair from among its members and 

rotate those positions among its members at the first meeting of each 

year.70

The MOU Working Group rotated the agency that hosted the group 

meeting between DOD and Education. Education officials told us that an 

In practice, since the government-wide USICH’s strategic plan 

was published in 2010, the current vice-chair has always been elected as 

chair the following year. Moreover, USICH’s participants come from 19 

departments and agencies, but at the time of this review, the chair and 

vice-chair have always come from four agencies—HUD, HHS, VA, and 

Labor—with significant homelessness programs. A HUD official who 

participates in USICH told us this leadership model provides continuity of 

federal agencies’ outcomes and strategies for reducing homelessness 

over time, and provides a longer-term perspective on important issues 

that will affect homelessness outcomes. VA officials told us that knowing 

in advance which agency will become the next chair enables the chair 

and co-chair to collaboratively establish short-term outcomes that have 

the buy-in of USICH’s members. Officials told us that both the VA and 

HUD Secretaries are approaching their current terms as equal co-chairs 

rather than chair and vice-chair to ensure both agencies buy-in to the 

Council’s outcomes and actions given the approaching deadline to 

complete USICH’s outcome to prevent and end veterans’ homelessness 

by 2015.

 

68GAO-12-1022. 

69GAO, Influenza Pandemic: Further Efforts Are Needed to Ensure Clearer Federal 

Leadership Roles and an Effective National Strategy, GAO-07-781 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 14, 2007). 

7042 U.S.C. § 11312.

Rotated Key Tasks and 

Responsibilities When 

Leadership of the Group 

Was Shared
 

Page 34 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

official from the agency that hosted the meeting also served as the chair 

of the meeting. A DOD official told us that they used this approach 

because it provided a sense of ownership in the group’s activities.

During initial meetings, participants of two of the four interagency groups 

we reviewed established procedures for leading the group, such as the 

frequency of meetings, protocols for communicating across agencies, 

whether group meetings will have an agenda, and whether stakeholders 

will take formal notes. We previously found that agencies bring diverse 

cultures to collaborative efforts, and it is important to address these 

differences to enable a cohesive working relationship and to create the 

mutual trust required to sustain the collaborative effort.71 In our prior work, 

we also found that it is important to establish ways to bridge 

organizational cultures, such as developing common terminology, 

compatible policies and procedures, and fostering open lines of 

communication.72

The MOU Working Group developed a communications protocol to 

provide a clear understanding of (1) the preferred methods of 

communicating, and (2) the chain-of-command protocol for 

communicating within the different levels of organizations within those 

agencies, including the military services. DOD officials told us it can be 

difficult for employees at civilian agencies, such as Education, to 

understand the terminology used by military officials as well as recognize 

officials’ ranks in the different military services. Among other things, the 

communications protocol defines a request for information and the 

information that should be included in such a request, including what type 

of information is needed, how and when it is needed, and the justification 

for the deadline. The communications protocol specifies that it is meant to 

guide the working relationships between DOD and Education, provide a 

common understanding of the best ways to communicate and collaborate, 

and that the communications protocol is not a rigid list of requirements 

that is appropriate for every situation.

 

71GAO-06-15. 

72GAO-12-1022. 

Established Clear and 

Inclusive Procedures for 

Leading the Group During 

Initial Meetings
 

Page 35 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

In each interagency group we reviewed, leadership responsibility for 

group activities was distributed among the different participant agencies. 

Moreover, the individual(s) with responsibilities for these activities were 

documented in the groups’ strategic plans, reports, or action plans. 

Officials said they distributed responsibility of activities among the group’s 

agencies and officials for various reasons, such as getting stakeholders to 

buy-in to the group’s objectives, keeping stakeholders engaged, and 

taking advantage of the individual expertise within the group.

For example, a DOJ official who co-chairs the Reentry Council’s stafflevel working group said that it intentionally distributed leadership of the 

subcommittees, in part, to disburse responsibility more broadly 

throughout the federal government and to allow for interaction and 

participation of a greater number of stakeholders.73

In addition to distributing leadership responsibility across the participating 

agencies, high-level agency officials and subject-matter experts from the

different member agencies participate in different sub-groups that support 

USICH and the Reentry Council. Membership of USICH and the Reentry 

Council is largely composed of cabinet-level officials who meet regularly 

but infrequently to discuss a range of topics, such as the path of work to 

be completed or progress made on group initiatives. In addition to those 

meetings, the Reentry Council and USICH are supported by a sub-group 

of high-level agency officials who, among other things, prepare 

recommendations for consideration at Reentry Council and USICH 

meetings. Moreover, both groups sometimes convene working groups 

Reentry Council stafflevel working group participants from VA, HUD, and HHS agreed that 

distributing leadership of subcommittees was an effective approach. An 

HHS official said this approach has allowed the subcommittees to be 

staffed by a broader group of participants from within the agencies. 

Moreover, VA officials told us that some agencies were a natural fit to 

lead certain subcommittees. In one instance, VA officials said it made 

sense for HHS to lead the subcommittee on health care because, among 

other things, HHS officials have the technical expertise to fulfill many of 

the subcommittees’ objectives.

 

73At the time of this review, the Reentry Council had 12 subcommittees focusing on a 

range of reentry issues that are led by combinations of nine federal entities. For instance, 

the Social Security Administration leads a Reentry Council subcommittee on access to 

benefits. According to DOJ officials, some subcommittees meet monthly while others meet 

quarterly. 

Distributed Leadership 

Responsibility for Group 

Activities Among 

Participants
 

Page 36 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

composed of subject-matter experts to work on specific program-level 

initiatives and tasks.

Key Considerations for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms Implementation Approaches 

Resources

• How will the collaborative mechanism 

be funded? If interagency funding is 

needed, is it permitted?

• How will the collaborative mechanism 

be staffed?

• Have participating agencies 

developed online tools or other 

resources that facilitate joint 

interactions?

• Created an inventory of resources 

dedicated towards interagency 

outcomes.

• Leveraged related agency resources 

toward the group’s outcomes.

• Pilot tested new collaborative ideas, 

programs, or policies before investing 

resources.

Agency officials from all four of the interagency groups we reviewed, and 

OMB staff told us that agencies generally do not receive specific funding 

for interagency activities. 74

 

74However, VA and HUD participate in a joint program authorized by Congress that 

contributes toward the goals of USICH which has designated funding. Under this joint 

program, HUD is authorized to set aside amounts under its rental assistance voucher 

program to provide assistance to homeless veterans through a supported housing 

program administered jointly with the VA under 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(19). The program 

provides rental assistance to homeless veterans with chronic mental illnesses or chronic 

substance use disorders who agree to continue treatment for such mental illness or 

substance use disorders as a condition to receiving such rental assistance and ensures 

such treatment and appropriate case management for each veteran receiving such rental 

assistance. 

To understand the resources that the 

interagency group had available, two of the interagency groups 

developed a detailed inventory of programs and authorities that related to 

the outcomes of the interagency group. According to officials, the 

inventories that each of the groups developed were intended to help the 

group better understand the full range of federal programs and resources 

devoted to government-wide outcomes or initiatives. For example, 

officials told us the Rental Policy Working Group developed an inventory 

of government programs that were related to each of the group’s 10 rental 

alignment proposals. The inventory was based on information from 

federal, state, and local government officials as well as housing 

developers and managers and included relevant regulations, statutes, 

and policies. Additionally, the inventory was used to promote 

Approaches for 

Managing Resources 

from Select 

Interagency Groups

Created an Inventory of 

Resources Dedicated 

Towards Interagency 

Outcomes
 

Page 37 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

understanding of government-wide rental programs, and according to 

officials, was useful in making decisions about the coordination of related 

programs across agency lines and between levels of government.

An inventory of relevant resources can also be used to identify the range 

of federal spending on an issue, which can result in more coordinated 

spending. In fiscal year 2011, DOJ, Labor, and HHS separately 

administered reentry grant programs.75 The Attorney General convened 

the Reentry Council, in part, to coordinate agencies’ reentry efforts to 

further prevent unnecessary duplication and share promising practices. 

Participants of the Reentry Council told us they developed an inventory of 

federal resources that are used to assess where resources are targeted 

to enable federal and local stakeholders to leverage these investments. 

To develop this inventory, participants of the Reentry Council created a 

spreadsheet that listed relevant funding streams and resources from their 

agencies that were dedicated to reentry programs. The inventory 

identified the amount of funding, the intended purpose, and jurisdictions 

associated with resources. The information from this inventory is available 

in an online resource with an interactive map of reentry resources across 

the United States.76

Officials we spoke with said this type of inventory can also help 

communicate some of the differences between agency organizational 

cultures, capabilities of agencies to control spending, and array of 

program tools being used to achieve mission objectives. For example, in 

the instance of USICH, agency officials reported that their agencies often 

had different policy and program tools, such as grants, at their disposal. 

Accordingly, in the early days of the Council, participants from the 

different agencies needed to understand the different purposes and 

requirements of the policy and program tools that each agency could 

bring to the table. In the case of HHS, homeless individuals may be 

eligible for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

program. But, since TANF is administered by the states, HHS cannot 

require states to use those grant funds for certain purposes. HHS officials 

told us that HHS’s Administration for Children and Families sent out an 

 

75GAO-13-93. 

76Accessible at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/reentry/national-criminal-justice-initiatives-map/

(accessed Dec. 24, 2013). However, at present, the map does not include the flow of 

funds to subgrantees.
 

Page 38 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

informational memorandum informing community-based organizations 

that they can spend TANF grant funds on homeless individuals. Officials 

from USICH told us that this memo sent a powerful message to the field 

about the opportunity of TANF agencies to engage in state and local 

efforts to end homelessness, and strategic steps they can take that are 

within their authority. HHS officials also noted that, given the nature of the 

program, they cannot require TANF funds to be dedicated to any specific 

group, including those experiencing homelessness. According to HHS 

officials, the nature of TANF funds can sometimes present a challenge to 

working across agency cultures because partners may expect that HHS 

can target funds more directly toward homeless individuals than they can. 

In contrast, the VA directly provides services to homeless individuals 

through medical centers. Therefore, it has more direct control over the 

specific homelessness outcomes that USICH is trying achieve. Officials 

from USICH told us their role is to facilitate a broad understanding of the 

policy and program tools that each member agency brings to the table.

Our annual reports on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication have 

highlighted the challenges associated with the lack of a comprehensive 

list of federal programs and funding information. We have found that a 

first step in identifying potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication 

among federal programs or activities involves creating a comprehensive 

list of programs along with related funding information.77

 

77

Currently, no 

comprehensive list exists, nor is there a common definition for what 

constitutes a federal “program.” In our prior work, we found that the lack 

of a common definition for a program makes it difficult to develop a 

comprehensive list of all federal programs. The lack of a list, in turn, 

makes it difficult to determine the scope of the federal government’s 

involvement in particular areas and, therefore, where action is needed to 

avoid fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. We also found that federal 

budget information is often unavailable or insufficiently reliable to identify 

the level of funding provided to programs or activities. For example, 

agencies could not isolate budgetary information for some programs 

because the data were aggregated at higher levels. Without knowing the 

full range of programs involved or the cost of implementing them, gauging 

the magnitude of the federal commitment to a particular area of activity, or 

the extent to which associated federal programs are duplicative is difficult. 

To help address these challenges, GPRAMA requires the Director of 

GAO-13-279SP. 
 

Page 39 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

OMB to compile and make publicly available a comprehensive list of all 

federal programs, and to include the purposes of each program, how it 

contributes to the agency’s mission and goals, as well as recent funding 

information. In May 2013, OMB published program inventories developed 

by 24 agencies. We will report on these inventories later this year.

Officials who participate in the Reentry Council told us that they identified 

the range of resources dedicated to the crosscutting issue, and looked for 

ways to leverage existing activities, tools, or programs that can benefit the 

interagency group. By assessing their relative strengths and limitations,

collaborating agencies looked for opportunities to leverage each others’ 

resources, thus obtaining additional benefits that would be unavailable if 

they were working separately.78

In the case of the Reentry Council, it used two technological resources to 

share information. For external information sharing, information about the 

Council is available on an existing website of the National Reentry 

Resource Center that is funded in part through DOJ’s Second Chance Act 

grant program.79

For internal communication, the Reentry Council relies on the MAX 

Federal Community collaboration platform that is made available to 

agencies through the Budget Formulation and Execution Line of 

Business, an E-Government initiative. According to OMB staff, MAX 

Community pages provide a platform for securely sharing information and 

documents within or between agencies. Anyone with an e-mail address 

from an executive branch agency can create a page on the MAX Federal 

Community system and share documents within their agency or with 

other federal agencies. OMB staff also told us that executive branch 

agencies can sponsor other users. OMB staff explained that access to 

According to an HHS official, there was already a 

website that was entirely dedicated to reentry issues. Therefore, it made 

sense to put the Reentry Council’s information on that website.

 

78GAO-06-15. 

79The Second Chance Act of 2007 authorized grant funding for the establishment of a 

reentry resource center to, among other things, provide education, training, and technical 

assistance for States, tribes, territories, local governments, service providers, nonprofit 

organizations, and corrections institutions and disseminate best practice information to 

states and other relevant entities. See, Pub. L. No. 110-199, § 101(c)(2),122 Stat. 657, 

666-667 (2008) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3797w(m).

Leveraged Related 

Agency Resources Toward 

the Group’s Outcomes
 

Page 40 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

documents on MAX is given on a page-by-page basis, which allows 

interagency groups to control access as needed. Some groups involved 

with more sensitive policy development have decided to have a closed 

group where only specific individuals have access.

Interagency groups we reviewed also leveraged the expertise of other 

agency officials to improve their programs and spending. Several 

agencies—including HHS, DOJ, and Labor—used the Reentry Council to 

identify individuals from other agencies to provide input into the grants 

programs that they administer. In one instance, as part of their work on 

the Reentry Council, Labor officials developed “Face Forward” grants, 

which were designed to give youth a chance at success by offering 

support services, training, and skills development that can help them 

obtain employment and overcome the stigma of a juvenile record. They 

included officials from DOJ who helped Labor officials score the grant 

applications and decide which grants would receive funding. Labor staff 

members said that this relationship helped them to spend the funds in a 

more strategic manner because they had additional information on the 

topic. To solicit this participation from DOJ staff, Labor staff members

identified the specific time commitment and expertise that they needed 

from the DOJ staff. They provided this list of commitments to a DOJ 

official who co-chairs the Reentry Council’s staff-level working group. The 

DOJ official was then able to recruit the appropriate officials from DOJ.

Given limited resources, interagency groups we reviewed pilot-tested 

selected ideas, programs, or policies before investing more extensive 

resources into implementation. Through pilot testing, groups were able to 

allow time to identify unanticipated consequences, implementation 

challenges, or to gather information on program effectiveness. In the case 

of the Rental Policy Working Group, in November 2011, USDA, HUD, and 

Treasury worked with their housing finance agency counterparts at the 

state level in Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington, Minnesota, Oregon, and 

Ohio to eliminate duplicative physical inspections of rental housing 

subsidized through more than one public funding source.80

 

80In our 2012 report on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, we found that examining 

the benefits and costs of housing programs and tax expenditures that address the same 

or similar populations or areas, and potentially consolidating them, could help mitigate 

overlap and fragmentation, and decrease costs.

A second 

round of this initial pilot was conducted in 2013 with the same states 

Pilot Tested New 

Collaborative Ideas, 

Programs, or Policies 

before Investing 

Resources
 

Page 41 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

participating. The purpose of the second round was to address issues 

that arose during the first pilot. Specifically, this pilot worked to ensure 

that (1) all of the inspections could be completed in a timely manner, and 

(2) all of the inspection reports were shared with all relevant parties in a 

timely manner. The 2013 pilot achieved both of these goals, and HUD 

reports that as a result, the Rental Policy Working Group avoided 120 

duplicative inspections across six states. The Rental Policy Working 

Group plans to expand this pilot in 2014 by adding an additional 25

states.

In another instance, USICH noted that it focuses on implementing 

strategies it has found to be effective at reducing or ending 

homelessness. It shared that innovative program models can begin as 

pilots and use evidence of savings to make the case for sustainability and 

expansion. Specifically, the Community Support Program for People 

Experiencing Chronic Homelessness in Massachusetts provides nonclinical support services to adults who are experiencing chronic 

homelessness so that they can be permanently housed in the community, 

and prevent avoidable hospitalizations. Initially, this program began as a 

pilot program with a cap on enrollment. This approach allowed the 

partners to launch the program and establish new partnerships, service 

models, and payment mechanisms. When the pilot program 

demonstrated results, including savings associated with reductions in 

hospitalizations, it was sustained and the enrollment cap was lifted.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the heads of 

the nine key agencies that participated in the four interagency groups that 

we reviewed for this study. These included the Secretaries of the U.S. 

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human 

Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs. We also shared a draft of this report for review and 

comment with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), and the Executive Director of the U.S. Interagency Council on 

Homelessness (USICH).

The Departments of Defense, Education, Labor and USICH had no 

comments on the report. We received technical comments from the 

Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and 

Urban Development, Justice, Treasury, and Veteran Affairs, as well as 

OMB, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

Agency Comments
 

Page 42 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and other interested parties. In addition, the report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V.

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues
 

Page 43 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

List of Addressees:

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Tom Coburn

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security 

 and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Mark R. Warner 

Chairman 

Task Force on Government Performance 

Committee on the Budget 

United States Senate

The Honorable Elijah Cummings 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Highlights Page from GAO-06-15 

Page 44 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

Appendix I: Highlights Page from GAO-06-15
Appendix II: Highlights Page from GAO-12-

1022 

Page 45 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

Appendix II: Highlights Page from GAO-12-

1022
Appendix III: List of Collaborative Mechanisms 

from GAO-12-1022 

Page 46 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

Appendix III: List of Collaborative 

Mechanisms from GAO-12-1022
Appendix IV: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

This report is part of a series of reports under our mandate in GPRAMA to 

periodically examine how agencies are implementing the law. The 

objectives of this report are to examine how select interagency groups 

(such as task forces, working groups, councils, and committees): 1) 

defined their missions and desired outcomes; 2) measured performance 

and ensured accountability 3) established leadership approaches; and 4) 

used resources, such as funding, staff and technology.

Following issuance of our 2012 report on interagency collaboration, we 

continued our work to identify the most commonly implemented 

mechanism for collaboration, from the list of mechanisms (listed in 

appendix III).1

After narrowing our scope to focus on interagency groups, we conducted 

an analysis to determine the most common challenges that interagency 

groups face when collaborating. To identify the most common challenges, 

we reviewed a sample of GAO reports on collaboration, which were 

issued from January 2005 through February 2013. We also reviewed 

relevant recommendations from our prior work directed at interagency 

groups. We organized the challenges that these reports identified into the 

key issues from our 2012 report and found that the most common 

challenges that interagency groups experienced fell under the key 

features of:

Accordingly, this report focuses on one of these 

mechanisms—interagency groups—(also referred to as councils, 

committees, task forces, and working groups), because they were the 

most commonly cited interagency mechanism in our sample of GAO 

reports on collaboration published from January 2005 through February 

2013.

• Outcomes

• Accountability

• Leadership

• Resources

To identify implementation approaches that agencies have used to 

address or avoid these challenges, we identified a limited number of 

interagency groups from our prior work that have addressed or avoided 

one or more of these challenges. To identify interagency groups that have 

 

1

GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

Appendix IV: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix IV: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

addressed one or more collaboration-related challenges, we examined 

our sample of reports, including areas that we previously identified as 

being at risk for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication; high-risk; 

crosscutting federal priority goals under GPRAMA; and prior 

recommendations, to identify groups that addressed, or partially 

addressed, these challenges. Based on a review of our prior work, we 

identified potential interagency groups that exhibited some of the 

practices to enhance and sustain collaboration.2

• Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Education 

(Education) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group

We then narrowed the 

list of interagency groups to four groups that represented a balanced and 

diverse set of characteristics, such as the number of participating 

agencies, duration, creation vehicle (for example, through laws, etc.), and 

groups with both voluntary and mandated participation. Our final selection 

of interagency groups includes the following:

• Federal Interagency Reentry Council (Reentry Council)

• Rental Policy Working Group

• U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH)

To arrive at a subset of agencies to interview about their participation in 

the selected groups, we selected the lead agency, entity, or agencies 

from each group. We also interviewed agencies that we determined to be 

key contributors. We interviewed officials from the following entities: 

Office of Management and Budget; U.S. Department of Agriculture; 

Department of Defense; Department of Education; Department of Health 

and Human Services; Department of Housing and Urban Development; 

Department of Justice; Department of Labor; Department of the Treasury; 

Department of Veterans Affairs; USICH; and the Domestic Policy Council 

in the Executive Offices of the President. During these interviews, we 

asked working group members about the implementation approaches that 

they had employed to establish and enhance outcomes, accountability, 

leadership, and resources. We did not interview all contributors to all 

interagency groups. For interagency groups with three or fewer federal 

agency participants, we interviewed officials from all participant agencies.

We also observed a Reentry Council event and a USICH meeting to 

identify potential implementation approaches. In addition, to identify 

 

2

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005) 

and GAO-12-1022. 
Appendix IV: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

collaborative leadership competencies, we reviewed relevant academic 

literature and relevant reports.

In addition to the illustrative examples described above, we hosted two 

expert practitioner panels, in coordination with the Senior Executive 

Association, to identify and discuss useful practices and lessons for 

implementing interagency groups. We selected panelists that were 

recipients of the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award in 2011 or 2012 

and that had experience leading or participating in interagency groups.3

The following expert practitioners participated in our panels and 

interviews:

We invited these panelists to share their perspectives on interagency 

groups; we did not ask them to speak on behalf of the federal agencies or 

organizations that these participants represent or represented. Of the 

expert practitioners listed below seven practitioners participated in two 

small group panels and we conducted individual interviews with the other 

four.

• Charles A. Casto, Retired Regional Administrator, Region III, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer and Deputy Administrator,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

• William J. Fleming, Retired Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer and 

Director for Human Resources Management, U.S. Department of 

Commerce

• James D. Giattina, Director of the Water Protection Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency

• Dr. Rowan Gould, Deputy Director for Operations, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

• Lana T. Hurdle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, 

U.S. Department of Transportation

 

3

Each year, the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award recognizes no more than one 

percent of career Senior Executive Service members who demonstrated, “extraordinary 

long term achievements” in program results or executive leadership. The nominating 

criteria for these awards specify that, among other things, the senior executive has 

demonstrated their ability to partner with stakeholders inside and outside the organization. 

For individuals who had interagency experience, but were unable to attend the panel 

discussion, we held individual interviews.
Appendix IV: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

• Michael W. Lowder, Director, Office of Intelligence, Security, and 

Emergency Response, U.S. Department of Transportation

• Dr. Alexander E. MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes and Director, Earth System 

Research Laboratory, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

• Dr. A. Stanley Meiburg, Deputy Regional Administrator for Region 4, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator, Saint Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corporation, U.S. Department of Transportation

• Thomas P. Skelly, Director, Budget Service, U.S. Department of 

Education

Based on our interviews with interagency group participants and expert 

practitioner panelists, we identified and categorized recurring themes 

under each of the four considerations from our prior work and developed 

from these a set of approaches associated with each challenge. If more 

than one group had used the approach and found it to be effective, we 

included it in our list. If a limited number of groups experienced a specific 

challenge, but identified a way to address it, we noted this in the text. For 

example, only two interagency groups in our sample had a shared 

leadership model. While our examples were limited to two groups, this is 

a frequently cited challenge in our work, so we included the approach, but 

noted in the text that the finding was only supported by two groups we 

reviewed. We asked agency officials to review the examples for accuracy 

and incorporated their comments where appropriate. We did not 

independently verify the effectiveness of these examples, but did examine 

agency documentation and support for testimonial evidence where 

available.

We also note that our findings rest on the examples we reviewed and the 

practitioners we interviewed and thus may not be applicable to all 

interagency groups. For example, in this report, we focus on interagency 

groups that respond to non-emergency situations, which require a 

different type of response than emergencies. Also, all of the policy or 

topic areas in our examples are currently high-priorities of this 

administration, as demonstrated by the involvement of the Executive 

Office of the President or Cabinet-level officials in the groups. As such, 

this report provides agency perspectives and approaches that have been 

effective in addressing collaboration-related considerations for the groups 

we studied, but does not provide a comprehensive or universally 

applicable set of implementation approaches for interagency group. We 

previously found that interagency groups can vary widely depending on 

the purpose, composition, or other unique characteristics, and as such, 
Appendix IV: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

approaches that have proven effective for one group may not always 

apply to other groups. Nevertheless, we identified common approaches 

among the groups we reviewed.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to February 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 52 GAO-14-220 Implementation Approaches for Collaborative Groups

J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Sarah Veale, Assistant Director, 

and Mallory Barg Bulman, Analyst-in-Charge, supervised the 

development of this report. Peter Beck, Martin De Alteriis, and Don 

Kiggins made significant contributions to this report. Karin Fangman 

provided legal counsel and Alicia Cackley, Andrew Finkel, David Maurer, 

and Paul Schmidt made key contributions to this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(451018)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.